26 
Pterodactyle (pl. 1. fig. 1), from the shaft of the bone in question 
(7b. fig. 2), and from the femur of a recent Albatros (7d. fig. 3), in 
corroboration of the required proof: and he adds, “ Fortunately the 
two fine specimens from the rich collection of Mrs. Smith of Ton- 
bridge Wells, represented by fig. 1. pl. 2, in a great measure justify 
this conclusion; and in the bone a, which is apparently the corre- 
sponding bone to the one represented by fig. 1 in Prof. Owen’s paper, 
the head is very nearly in a perfect state of preservation.’’ (op. cit. 
p- 5.) Mr. Bowerbank, in his explanation of plate 2, describes the 
two fine specimens above mentioned as “Fig. 1. Radius and ulna of 
Pterodactylus giganteus, in the cabinet of Mrs. Smith of Tonbridge 
Wells.” (tom. cit. p. 10.) He proceeds to state, “There are two 
other similar bones, imbedded side by side, in the collection of Mr. 
Charles of Maidstone, of still greater dimensions than those from the 
cabinet of Mrs. Smith ;” and he assigns his grounds for the conclu- 
sion, that “the animal to which such bones belonged could, therefore, 
have scarcely measured less than fifteen or sixteen feet from tip to tip 
of its expanded wings.”’ 
The Committee of the British Association for the Reform and Re- 
gulation of Zoological Nomenclature, amongst other excellent rules, 
have decided that, ‘A name which is glaringly false shall be changed” 
(Report, p. 113). I submit that this is the case when the name gi- 
ganteus is proposed for a species less than half the size of others pre- 
viously discovered. Now, although those remains of the truly gigantic 
Pterodactyles had not been demonstrated to be such, yet they were 
suspected so to be by Mr. Bowerbank when he proposed the name 
giganteus ; and the name is in fact proposed, subject to the condition 
of that demonstration, and under the evident belief that they be- 
longed to the same species as the obvious Pterodactyle remains he 
was describing. He says, ‘‘ Under these circumstances I propose that 
the species shall be designated ‘ giganteus’,’ and the circumstances 
referred to are the probable case that the bones, which from their large 
size I had supposed to belong to a bird, should prove to belong to a 
Pterodactyle. 
The Committee for the Reform of Zoological Nomenclature next 
proceed to determine that, “Names not clearly defined may be 
changed. Unless a species or group is intelligibly defined when the 
name is given, it cannot be recognised by others, and the signification 
of the name is consequently lost. Two things are necessary before a 
zoological term can acquire any authority, viz. definition and publi- 
cation. Definition properly implies a distinct exposition of essential 
characters, and in all cases we conceive this to be indispensable.” 
(Report, pp.113,114.) Now with regard to the Pterodactylus gigan- 
teus, Mr. Bowerbank had unreservedly applied the term to the species 
to which the long wing-bone first described by me might appertain, 
under the circumstances of its being proved to belong to a Pterodac- 
tyle ; inasmuch as he had figured two similar and equal-sized bones 
in the ‘ Quarterly Journal of the Geological Society,’ vol. iv. pl. 2. fig. 1 
(Proceedings of the Society for June 9, 1847), as the ‘‘radius and ulna 
